ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136455. June 28, 1999]

SPS. ENRIQUE & LEYTECIA CO vs. REMMAN ENT., INC.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 28, 1999.

G.R. No. 136455 (Spouses Enrique and Leytecia Co vs. Remman Enterprises, Inc.)

Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the regional trial court.

The present controversy stemmed from an action for specific performance, reconveyance or reversion filed by private respondent against petitioners, alleging that petitioners violated paragraph 6 of the deed of sale executed between private respondent as vendor and petitioners as vendees involving two parcels of lot, when petitioners demolished the perimeter fence constructed by private respondent between the latter's Better Living Subdivision and petitioners' adjoining property outside the subdivision, to gain access to their property adjoining the subdivision.

In answer, petitioners asserted that it is the HLURB and not the trial court which has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. Petitioners further claimed that since they already own the subject lots in private respondent's subdivision, and the perimeter fence is within said lots, they are free to demolish said perimeter fence.

The trial court decided in favor of private respondent and said decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Thus the instant petition which must likewise fail.

A perusal of the records reveal that the issue of the trial court's jurisdiction in the case at bar was settled in G.R. No. 101950 where it was held that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in CA-G.R. SP No. 23705 holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in exercising jurisdiction of the case.

Petitioners also claim that they were deprived of due process when the trial court issued a pre-trial order without conducting a pre-trial conference without their participation. This bare assertion scant consideration for as correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, although petitioners had been declared as in default, they moved for and were granted a reconsideration of said order and were thereafter granted the right to cross examine private respondent's witness. They were then allowed to present witness in their own behalf. Petitioners' malicious insinuation that the issued pre-trial order was merely inserted into the records and that the trial court is guilty of foul practice is deplorable. Petitioners ought to know, and it bears stressing, that a court or judge acting as such, is presumption to have acted in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction, and enjoys the presumption that official duty had been regularly performed. Petitioners miserably failed to overturn said presumption hence, they have no business making such reckless insinuations.

Finally, as to the validity of paragraph 6 of the deeds of sale, article 1206 of the Civil Code provides that parties to a contract may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Corollarily, Article 1308 provides that a contract validly entered into is the law between the parties; it must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance therewith cannot be left to the will of one of them.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE